By now I know i dont have first post, but shout outs to whoever does.
--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
will it make survive?
by
Mr2cents
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The cost of chips depends mainly on the number of them you produce, so won't the mp3 players be much cheaper? I personally use ogg, but mp3 is still much much more popular. I know people (ordinary computer users) who haven't even heard of ogg! (don't wory, I 'fixed' it;))
-- "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Re:About time, but nothing special
by
deman1985
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It may not be in hard silicon yet, but it's a working design nonetheless. It can only be improved from here by using design-specific hardware.
FPGA Version?
by
tunabomber
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Does anyone know whether there are music players equipped with Field Programmable Gate Arrays to allow new codecs to be programmed in as technology advances? That would really be nice if they made a lightweight player with a generic FPGA in it so you could burn whatever codecs you want into it without needing a microprocessor and an EEPROM chip.
--
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71...
Re:FPGA Version?
by
stonecypher
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Not really. IBM's PPC PDA design, for example, has an FPGA for misc. functions like modems.
Yah, they also used to do that with their PCMCIA modems. Wave something or another, too lazy to check. That's a little different: IBM was producing those for a vareity of devices, all being sold at IBM scale, all fairly tiny devices. The part of the modem that's actually an FPGA is relatively small: it's just the encoder, the decoder, the modulator and the demodulator. The rest is still IC. That way, they can pick up new V standards without relying on software running on a general purpose CPU from flash.
On the other hand, this guy is talking about taking on whole new audio codecs. Modems don't change a bunch: they're tied to an analog carrier with certain characteristics that aren't expected to change. (That's why Big Blue stopped this tactic for a while - when we switched to 56k, we were really just taking a direct line to the multiplexer at the telco digitally, instead of having a d->a converter in the way like traditional; this implied a lot of new characteristics, and the old whateverwave modems couldn't be upgraded to match.)
A new audio codec could be tremendously larger and/or more complex than an older one. Granted, this is also a problem for GP CPUs; they're finite speed, and what's good enough for something like MP3 can't handle something like VQF; I expect this isn't a fluke. Later codecs will need more horsepower too. But the kind of near-identical situations you get with modems are seriously smaller problems than switching audio decompressors at the scale that these hashing monstrosities work.
Re:How are they supported?
by
deman1985
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's supported by the same means that any other open source project is supported-- various contributions in time, code, and money. The best way to keep the project alive is to get involved somehow or another.
"Hardware IP" includes "MultiCore Architecture"; CPU and DSP, Memory card interface, External memory interface, LCD controller, and Key input function. Only external memory and audio D/A converter is needed to build a complete portable player system.
It sounds like it would be super-easy to build a homebrew portable audio player now! I wonder what memory interface the chip uses? Could you simply wire something like a memory stick or MMC, battries, a couple buttons and be good to go?
I find that extreemly cool.
-- autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
that's one big step, though
by
SweetAndSourJesus
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Designing a working model is probably 90% of the effort.
Now it's just a matter of finding someone who wants to build them.
--
-- the strongest word is still the word "free"
Re:Floating point?
by
stratjakt
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Some time back there was an article about an integer based ogg playback core for hardware designs or some such silliness.
I dunno. There's no money in ogo vorboses - it's not percievably better than mp3 to the end user, and it will cost more due to smaller production runs and a niche market.
The average joe doesnt care that the company that made his walkman got the IP for free.
Hell, even the above average joe doesnt care.
Anyways.
Shmogg wogg
--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Wow, very low power!
by
leviramsey
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As iTunes is AAC (MPEG-4 audio) with DRM wrapped around it, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to wrap DRM around Ogg.
It's entirely possible.
by
mindstrm
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But why would apple bother. It won't yield a significant advantage over what they have now.
Re:Is it needed?
by
bn557
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
well, it might not sound different, but if you compare any of those oggs to a fresh rip at q1, your fresh rip will be around the same size and sound better.
P
-- Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant;
computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb;
together they are unbeatable
An Ogg-only player dropped onto the market today would be a complete no-op, and nobody's going to want to make a player that takes an extra chip for something only a fraction of a percent of the users are asking for right now.
I want this, and I want it badly... but I don't think the device manufacturers will care.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but...
by
fobbman
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...why would Joe User consider buying an Ogg portable player? I just pulled up my Netjuke and it says that I have 189 mp3-encoded albums in there, encoded that way because I have a portable mp3 player. I sure don't want to go through the bother of re-encoding my music. Why would any user want to go through the bother of a) re-encoding all of their CDs in Ogg format when they won't notice the difference with their crappy Walkman headphones, or b) re-pirating all of those songs that they like in Ogg format (as if they would find them)?
I just don't see a compelling reason for the portable music crowd to want to do this, and I don't think that there are enough./ fanatics to make it financially viable for a company to produce.
Re:I don't mean to sound like a troll, but...
by
OzJimbob
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, you've got to look at it the other way round. The only reason I have gigabytes of mp3 files instead of oggs is because my car stereo / home DVD player / portable only support mp3s. I think ogg is a much better format, and I'd love to use it for everything, but with the rising popularity of mp3-playing hardware, it faces a big fence to climb over.
Certainly, an ogg-only player isn't fantastic news, but any step towards players that will decode mp3 AND ogg AND whatever else you want to throw their way is a good thing.
-- -"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
I'm ambivalent. On the one hand I don't want to slag off the guy who put so much work into Ogg. On the other hand, I don't support the idea behind Ogg at all. Ogg was created to protect us against the evil of software patents, but in doing so, it legitimizes that same evil. I would rather not acknowledge it at all: I'd rather see it die through a massive failure of enforcement (after all, in retrospect, what was all the brouhaha over the GIF patent good for?).
You're a little wrong here -- Ogg wasn't created to fight software patents; it was created to provide an unencumbered multimedia format. If you want to use that sort of thing, Ogg is your choice. It turns out that Ogg Vorbis is also very good, so it's a good choice even if you're fully willing to use encumbered formats.
But your purpose is different; Ogg isn't for you. You want to do civil disobedience to protest a bad law. I'm all for you doing that, even though I can't join you (I'm not capable of infringing on this patent even if I wanted to), but you need one friendly warning: the result that all civil disobedience users need to expect and prepare for is punishment according to the terms of the law. I'm not saying you're *not* expecting that, but it's certainly not what you're advocating when you say that nobody should worry about MP3 licensing terms. No, only those who are willing and prepared to pay the price should set out to battle.
But other than that -- go for it. I'll keep using and developing free alternatives where I can, since I don't want to take something that's not offered freely.
-Billy
Re:Is it needed?
by
edhall
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're forgetting something.
OGG shows the world that free software can do as well
or better than proprietary.
OGG's existance and prevelance has everything to
do with discrediting the model you despise.
You're just pissing in the wind by using MP3; if you use,
demand, and support OGG, you're sending a stronger
message IMHO.
-Ed
Re:Wow, very low power!
by
.com+b4+.storm
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Now the question is will the Apple Music Store start offering OGG format files? Maybe an iPod update?
Not to be rude, but... Why the hell would Apple do that? As far as the Music Store is concerned, it will not happen - Apple's AAC format works just fine, and it has the lite DRM that makes the RIAA happy while not pissing off customers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And they won't.
Then there is the fact that Apple primarily targets the 'average' computer user, which is not you and me. Joe iPod Owner does not know or care about OGG, and he has no reason to. His 2GB collection of MP3s and his fledgling assortment of iTunes AAC files serve his needs. Since he does not care, there's little reason for Apple to.
-- "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Re:Then here is the Big One
by
DWIM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Seems that Ogg is just different. Not really much better and not any worse.
Then you might want to re-read the previous reply. Specifically, it is free from royalty fees and encodes to a smaller file size for a given level of quality compared to mp3. That can translate to better quality sound if you find the current, typical mp3 file size acceptable, since you can encode at a higher level of quality and keep that file size. The main negative, which you correctly identified, is the general lack of files. This can be rectified over time as people adopt ogg. I encode my CDs now with Ogg Vorbis. I also have lots of mp3s. I look forward to the day when a decent portable music player is available that will play both, have a 20+GB capacity, a decent form factor, and a reasonable price (the iPod is not a reasonable price, IMHO).
Also, Ogg Vorbis does not circumvent IP issues. The issues are the same for both ogg and mp3.
Re:Ogg would be a must-have format if...
by
bilgebag
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> A few things that would make me switch to Ogg in a second would be if: > It supported gapless playback between one file and the next (something mp3 is spotty at),
You have one second to switch to Ogg Vorbis! This is one of the design decisions these guys got right. The format was designed for streaming from the start, so this was a pre-requisite.
You can even cat two Ogg Vorbis files together and they'll play seamlessly...
Power consumption will probably be comparable with the fixed (not floating) point implementations (like Tremor).
The player vendors need to be aware of Ogg Vorbis before they can consider the market for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me the chip is not a reality.
A design for it is.
Which is merely one step past "idea".
By now I know i dont have first post, but shout outs to whoever does.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The cost of chips depends mainly on the number of them you produce, so won't the mp3 players be much cheaper? I personally use ogg, but mp3 is still much much more popular. I know people (ordinary computer users) who haven't even heard of ogg! (don't wory, I 'fixed' it ;))
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
It may not be in hard silicon yet, but it's a working design nonetheless. It can only be improved from here by using design-specific hardware.
KappaStone
Does anyone know whether there are music players equipped with Field Programmable Gate Arrays to allow new codecs to be programmed in as technology advances? That would really be nice if they made a lightweight player with a generic FPGA in it so you could burn whatever codecs you want into it without needing a microprocessor and an EEPROM chip.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
It's supported by the same means that any other open source project is supported-- various contributions in time, code, and money. The best way to keep the project alive is to get involved somehow or another.
KappaStone
"Hardware IP" includes "MultiCore Architecture"; CPU and DSP, Memory card interface, External memory interface, LCD controller, and Key input function. Only external memory and audio D/A converter is needed to build a complete portable player system.
It sounds like it would be super-easy to build a homebrew portable audio player now! I wonder what memory interface the chip uses? Could you simply wire something like a memory stick or MMC, battries, a couple buttons and be good to go?
I find that extreemly cool.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Designing a working model is probably 90% of the effort.
Now it's just a matter of finding someone who wants to build them.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Some time back there was an article about an integer based ogg playback core for hardware designs or some such silliness.
I dunno. There's no money in ogo vorboses - it's not percievably better than mp3 to the end user, and it will cost more due to smaller production runs and a niche market.
The average joe doesnt care that the company that made his walkman got the IP for free.
Hell, even the above average joe doesnt care.
Anyways.
Shmogg wogg
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
As iTunes is AAC (MPEG-4 audio) with DRM wrapped around it, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to wrap DRM around Ogg.
But why would apple bother. It won't yield a significant advantage over what they have now.
well, it might not sound different, but if you compare any of those oggs to a fresh rip at q1, your fresh rip will be around the same size and sound better.
P
Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
An Ogg-only player dropped onto the market today would be a complete no-op, and nobody's going to want to make a player that takes an extra chip for something only a fraction of a percent of the users are asking for right now.
I want this, and I want it badly... but I don't think the device manufacturers will care.
...why would Joe User consider buying an Ogg portable player? I just pulled up my Netjuke and it says that I have 189 mp3-encoded albums in there, encoded that way because I have a portable mp3 player. I sure don't want to go through the bother of re-encoding my music. Why would any user want to go through the bother of a) re-encoding all of their CDs in Ogg format when they won't notice the difference with their crappy Walkman headphones, or b) re-pirating all of those songs that they like in Ogg format (as if they would find them)?
./ fanatics to make it financially viable for a company to produce.
I just don't see a compelling reason for the portable music crowd to want to do this, and I don't think that there are enough
I'm ambivalent. On the one hand I don't want to slag off the guy who put so much work into Ogg. On the other hand, I don't support the idea behind Ogg at all. Ogg was created to protect us against the evil of software patents, but in doing so, it legitimizes that same evil. I would rather not acknowledge it at all: I'd rather see it die through a massive failure of enforcement (after all, in retrospect, what was all the brouhaha over the GIF patent good for?).
You're a little wrong here -- Ogg wasn't created to fight software patents; it was created to provide an unencumbered multimedia format. If you want to use that sort of thing, Ogg is your choice. It turns out that Ogg Vorbis is also very good, so it's a good choice even if you're fully willing to use encumbered formats.
But your purpose is different; Ogg isn't for you. You want to do civil disobedience to protest a bad law. I'm all for you doing that, even though I can't join you (I'm not capable of infringing on this patent even if I wanted to), but you need one friendly warning: the result that all civil disobedience users need to expect and prepare for is punishment according to the terms of the law. I'm not saying you're *not* expecting that, but it's certainly not what you're advocating when you say that nobody should worry about MP3 licensing terms. No, only those who are willing and prepared to pay the price should set out to battle.
But other than that -- go for it. I'll keep using and developing free alternatives where I can, since I don't want to take something that's not offered freely.
-Billy
You're forgetting something. OGG shows the world that free software can do as well or better than proprietary. OGG's existance and prevelance has everything to do with discrediting the model you despise. You're just pissing in the wind by using MP3; if you use, demand, and support OGG, you're sending a stronger message IMHO.
Now the question is will the Apple Music Store start offering OGG format files? Maybe an iPod update?
Not to be rude, but... Why the hell would Apple do that? As far as the Music Store is concerned, it will not happen - Apple's AAC format works just fine, and it has the lite DRM that makes the RIAA happy while not pissing off customers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And they won't.
Then there is the fact that Apple primarily targets the 'average' computer user, which is not you and me. Joe iPod Owner does not know or care about OGG, and he has no reason to. His 2GB collection of MP3s and his fledgling assortment of iTunes AAC files serve his needs. Since he does not care, there's little reason for Apple to.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Then you might want to re-read the previous reply. Specifically, it is free from royalty fees and encodes to a smaller file size for a given level of quality compared to mp3. That can translate to better quality sound if you find the current, typical mp3 file size acceptable, since you can encode at a higher level of quality and keep that file size. The main negative, which you correctly identified, is the general lack of files. This can be rectified over time as people adopt ogg. I encode my CDs now with Ogg Vorbis. I also have lots of mp3s. I look forward to the day when a decent portable music player is available that will play both, have a 20+GB capacity, a decent form factor, and a reasonable price (the iPod is not a reasonable price, IMHO).
Also, Ogg Vorbis does not circumvent IP issues. The issues are the same for both ogg and mp3.
> A few things that would make me switch to Ogg in a second would be if:
> It supported gapless playback between one file and the next (something mp3 is spotty at),
You have one second to switch to Ogg Vorbis! This is one of the design decisions these guys got right. The format was designed for streaming from the start, so this was a pre-requisite.
You can even cat two Ogg Vorbis files together and they'll play seamlessly...
Power consumption will probably be comparable with the fixed (not floating) point implementations (like Tremor).
The player vendors need to be aware of Ogg Vorbis before they can consider the market for it.